In my personal experience it does not make me pile on the lbs. I've had a diet coke/pepsi every day for the past 4 months since starting IP (yes I know it's not on plan) and haven't had any trouble losing weight.

I'm not advocating it by any means because I'm sure the fake sugar is not good for you, neither is the fake sugar used in the IP products good for us. I just had my blood work done and I got a clean bill of health from my doctor. Again not saying this stuff isn't bad, just giving my personal experience.

The effects on leptin have been shown quite conclusively. Although it remains to be said that you can drink a lot of diet coke without gaining weight as as long you do not overeat, as well. It is not an automatic response.

The effect on cancer as pointed out in the article has not been scientifically proven. If there were a "dramatic increase" in certain cancers, coke would be out of business. Aspartame has been used for decades already.

By the way I should point out that my wife sees a naturopathic doctor because we both believe that prevention is the way to go and when possible prefer natural remedies. That said, when it comes to someone like Mercola, you have to only take one look at his online store and then you can easily put 2 and 2 together.

Mercola is not on the mark on all of his points .... but that doesn't mean he is off base on everything either.

Yes. It absolutely does make a difference about water. It's the reason that that many forms of mineral waters have healing qualities.

And it is also the reason that alkanylized (sp?) can make a big difference for some people.

H20 therefore is not all just H20!

And about aspartame?

There has been a huge, huge, huge campaign by multinational conglomerates to keep stevia off the shelves. Why? It poses a real threat to the chemical concoctions that are aspartame, splenda, etc that hurt us.

Same thing is happening here in Canada where I live. Farmers are working hard to get a hemp industry going. Huge, Huge, HUGE anti-hemp campaign being pushed by powerful plastics manufacturer about this.

Why? Hemp is so amazing in terms of what it can be used for (components for car parts etc made from hemp are more durable than plastic), that plastic manufacturers are threatened. Hemp -- given that it is a natural product -- is not harmful to the environment in the way that plastics are.

If you are interested more in the truth about aspartame than you are about condemning Mercola as a quack, I urge you to explore further afield and see what new studies are saying about aspartame.

How are aspartame manufacturers responding to this? They are upping their marketing campaigns to make aspartame seem even more 'healthful' by eg, adding vitamins and fibre to it and selling it as though it serves us on multiple levels of health.

Sorry. On this one, emerging science just doesn't back you up!

By attacking Mercola instead of the issue, you are really just dodging the issue.

I have heard Coke and Pepsi are in the process of switching to stevia. It is correct that they tried to blacken stevia. But it still does not make aspartame toxic. Aspartame does "confuse" your body, but it is still the decision to eat sweets that piles on the fat and there are no conclusive studies showing that aspartame promotes cancer. If ill health effects are to be prevented, it is advised to do everything in moderation.

And it is also the reason that alkanylized (sp?) can make a big difference for some people.

H20 therefore is not all just H20!
......................................
And about aspartame?

..........................................
If you are interested more in the truth about aspartame than you are about condemning Mercola as a quack, I urge you to explore further afield and see what new studies are saying about aspartame.

Sorry. On this one, emerging science just doesn't back you up!

By attacking Mercola instead of the issue, you are really just dodging the issue.

Annik

Ummm. I'm sorry Annik, actually its not a fallacy to attack one's "appeal to authority" when the other person appeals to an authority figure

That said, there isn't valid, peer reviewed science to back up any of what YOU and Mercola are saying, so I issue you the same challenge: Bring some research papers/links to the actual research, in peer reviewed journals, that back up the claim that aspartame is single-handedly resposible for all the evils in the world (cancer, obesity, etc)... The evidence collected so far just doesnt support this. Yes, there are *some* indications that it (aspartame) *might* be interpretted by the body IN SOME PEOPLE as sugar. There have been studies, in LAB RIGHTS, who are fed un godly amounts of the stuff, that then develope issues.
Fine. Im not saying aspartame is good. im not saying its bad. I'm saying, don't accuse others of having NOT done their research, when they are not the ones citing a .COM as their source.

End rant. I realize that John can speak up for himself.
Annik- i am not slamming or attacking you, so my apologies that it seems that way. To paraphrase John's tag,, and first Kaplods) misinformation is rampant in this day and age

Meghan

__________________"All the Secrets of your foundation shall come to light.... and when you lie, uprooted and broken in the sun, then shall your lies also be separated from your truths" Nietzche

"I do not workout. I TRAIN.
I do not eat. I FEED.
I do not sleep. I RECHARGE.
My greatest fear in this life is the fear of being ordinary."
Personal Bests
MARATHON- 3:58
10K- 44:42
1/2 Marathon -1:50:48
5 miles - 36:12

That's interesting about Coke. They are losing a lot of money because people are starting to catch on about artificial sweeteners and turn away from them.

One of the articles below says that Coke is still trying to defend use of aspartame. It takes a long time to kick use of a substance out of the system once it has met approval by so called authorities.

I can't speak specifically about cancer but I do know about the neurological and respiratory effects... and reading the studies that say that aspartame causes weight gain are concerning.

Because it takes time and money to progress information up the chain of proof from animal to human studies, it may take decades for independent science to reverse the initial advantage given by a government agency like the FDA, the USDA, or the EPA.

Aspartame is now in wide use, making its risks "impossible" to accept (even with scientific proof) given that by then millions have been exposed to its dangers.

Besides this, monied interests lie with continued use of aspartame.

And:

'Our medical treatment and research models focus on treatments of disease, rather than the causes of disease. [This makes it] harder after the fact to ascertain whether a person's illness was caused by aspartame or GMOs or other exposure to chemicals, like in plastic bottles and containers containing bisphenol-A (BPA), or chemicals used in fracking oil and gas wells, which are becoming more common, or myriad other chemicals or combinations of chemicals.'

Ummm. I'm sorry Annik, actually its not a fallacy to attack one's "appeal to authority" when the other person appeals to an authority figure

That said, there isn't valid, peer reviewed science to back up any of what YOU and Mercola are saying, so I issue you the same challenge: Bring some research papers/links to the actual research, in peer reviewed journals, that back up the claim that aspartame is single-handedly resposible for all the evils in the world (cancer, obesity, etc)... The evidence collected so far just doesnt support this. Yes, there are *some* indications that it (aspartame) *might* be interpretted by the body IN SOME PEOPLE as sugar. There have been studies, in LAB RIGHTS, who are fed un godly amounts of the stuff, that then develope issues.
Fine. Im not saying aspartame is good. im not saying its bad. I'm saying, don't accuse others of having NOT done their research, when they are not the ones citing a .COM as their source.

End rant. I realize that John can speak up for himself.
Annik- i am not slamming or attacking you, so my apologies that it seems that way. To paraphrase John's tag,, and first Kaplods) misinformation is rampant in this day and age

Ummm. I'm sorry Annik, actually its not a fallacy to attack one's "appeal to authority" when the other person appeals to an authority figure

That said, there isn't valid, peer reviewed science to back up any of what YOU and Mercola are saying, so I issue you the same challenge: Bring some research papers/links to the actual research, in peer reviewed journals, that back up the claim that aspartame is single-handedly resposible for all the evils in the world (cancer, obesity, etc)... The evidence collected so far just doesnt support this. Yes, there are *some* indications that it (aspartame) *might* be interpretted by the body IN SOME PEOPLE as sugar. There have been studies, in LAB RIGHTS, who are fed un godly amounts of the stuff, that then develope issues.
Fine. Im not saying aspartame is good. im not saying its bad. I'm saying, don't accuse others of having NOT done their research, when they are not the ones citing a .COM as their source.

End rant. I realize that John can speak up for himself.
Annik- i am not slamming or attacking you, so my apologies that it seems that way. To paraphrase John's tag,, and first Kaplods) misinformation is rampant in this day and age

Meghan

Meghan,

Your points are well taken.

I was not appealing to Mercola as an authority figure. His article cites other research. I frequently post about aspartame and share a variety of articles about it.

John participates in these boards and spews off a lot of stuff authoritatively. Interesting that when you know something about what he is spewing about, often what he says can be challenged.

Maybe he is right on some stuff. Maybe he is not.

All I can speak to is what I know about.

I don't think aspartame is responsible for all the evils in the world. I just know I would not go near the stuff with a 10 foot pole. The industry backing up and promoting its use has vested monied interests ... and often those interests supercede what is in our best interest.

It takes a long, long, long time to bring a substance down off its throne once it has been given the imprimatur by an Agency like the FDA.

It takes money to make a case in front of the FDA.

Usually it is industry and not independent scientists who've got money to do that.